James Randi Love Thread

[shaman_]

[/b]
The point i was making, which granted is getting alittle off topic, is the way in which skepticism now opperates.
My intention isnt to strawman any party here, i genuinely dont know why skeptic sites can only stretch themselves to be skeptical about homeopathy and crop circles.
I offered up a few suggestions as to why i think this may be the case, but id be interested to know what other people think.

The central point for me at least, remains that skepticism should be applied in all instances or where ever possible.
The goal for me here isnt to debunk the debunkers and somehow have anything psi be true by default.

I agree.

[/b]
No its the other way round, im not having a pop at rhandi because hes too skeptical, rather he isnt skeptical enough/isnt in a position to be truly skeptical.
If this was any other area of science we just wouldnt be having this discussion. If Rhandi's methods were sound, then surely all experiments would work on the same basis - im a debunker with a wad of cash, prove that youre not all frauds geologists/biologists/physicists.
The point im making is whether its psi or any other phenomenon id be here just the same calling him out because his methodology is bunk.
The topic is irrelevant, its the method thats the issue here.

Sorry if I am asking you to repeat yourself but what part of his methodology do you have a problem with? I know you have questioned his intentions and qualifications.

 

[swivel]

I can understand if people find him arrogant or grating. That's fine. However if you had psychic powers and your biggest obstacle is proving to a short, 79 year old man who doesn't believe you .. then well big deal. His arrogance or close-minded attitude should be extra motivation to show off your powers.

Are we just focusing Randi's attitude and possible motivations to take attention away from the failures and attack the test again? Perhaps they are valid concerns.

Heliocentric, are you suggesting that Randi (or someone representing him) is causing people to fail the test? (perhaps unintentionally) How do you suspect that Randi is doing this? Many have been tested, I would expect one of them to have become suspicious. You know that the tests are designed so that there is no judging and the outcome is self evident. Randi isn't holding the testing materials in his hands or doing any of the scoring himself or anything like that.

I have read that Randi is often not even at the tests nowadays. He is certainly not at all of them and I know that he offers to be somewhere else if the applicant prefers it.

Maybe James Randi has the power to negate other people's powers?! The bastard is upset that he doesn't have a cooler power, so he is running around the globe sapping the powers from everyone he can.

Oh... wait. That's "Heroes". Nevermind.

 

[grover]

James,
-On Dawkins and religion: "Dawkins believes that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."[47] He disagrees with Stephen Jay Gould's idea of "nonoverlapping magisteria" (NOMA) and with similar ideas proposed by Martin Rees regarding the coexistence of science and religion without conflict, calling the former "positively supine." Regarding Rees's claim in Our Cosmic Habitat that "Such questions lie beyond science, however: they are the domain of philosophers and theologians," Dawkins replies "What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?"[48][49] More recently, he called Gould's NOMA proposal "a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp."[50]" Wiki article.

-I'm not saying Randi is psychic. I actually respect what he does 1000x more than the obvious frauds he debunks. But, the scientific method is important to use because the truth can be so slippery. That's why it should be used in all phenomenon and people should not jump on the Randi bandwagon just because it supports their view. Randi=Uri Geller only Randi won. Why did he win? I guess we'll have to study Randi scientifically, but then why not just cut out the middle man and rely on science to begin with.
-I perfectly respect if sceptics look at the science and say "there's not enough there yet to convince me. More needs to be done." What I can't respect is when sceptics say there is nothing there.
- And as far as the Randi million goes even Dawkins himself says he should be worried about the money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqNueGGP_uE

 

[MetaKron]

Maybe James Randi has the power to negate other people's powers?! The bastard is upset that he doesn't have a cooler power, so he is running around the globe sapping the powers from everyone he can.

Oh... wait. That's "Heroes". Nevermind.

Someone who is good at this can sap the strength of the strongest muscleman on Earth, so I can't see what difficulty he would have doing it to psychics.

 

[kmguru]

If I were a super psychic, I would not flaunt my ability to the world even though I could make money on it. I will be afraid that the government will whisk me away and lock me up in a laboratory for good.

If I were the senior officer in a government black project, I will pick up the real psychic and lock him up with genetic experiements so that our fighters would have better chance with the new tool.

This does not prove that there are no psychics...it is just that they may be hiding and afraid to come to public. So no one knows for sure what type of capability these people have.

The reasoning goes like this...if our genetic changes have been taking place for a million years to a level where we jumped in our ability from apes and chimps and the rest of the animals yet can not see well in dark, can not hear ultrasonic etc. then the next progression would be in areas beyond normal human abilities yet outwardly we would be the same. All it takes is a few genes expressed differently. Just like an IQ of 200 are rare but exist, so can certain abilities...

However, can we recognize that new ability in others? Does a Chimp think that humans are just a little more advanced (4% ?). Something to ponder...

By the way, if a person of IQ of 150 talks to a person of IQ of 200, the communications are difficult and the 150 person will think that the 200 is the same unless the 200 does amazing mental calculations or creates music etc better than the 150. If the 200 does understand highly complex patterns, the 150 would not understand what that is.

 

[grover]

That actually makes alot of sense that anyone with psychic powers would be working for the government and would also be obliged to keep their powers secret in the name of national security.

 

[shaman_]

Sure it makes sense. It also makes sense that we can't see elves because they are magical. I am not trying to ridicule here, I have heard that elves are still taken seriously in some countries.

You could be right but until there is some more credible evidence it requires a little faith. imho

 

[grover]

I don't disagree with you. I'm just underlining why James Randi doesn't prove anything. The fact that no one has one the money could be attributable to any number of causes and tt's preposterous for people who claim to be science-minded to make assumptions that the James Randi million can mean only one thing.

 

[heliocentric]

I was actually thinking about Randi today while watching a very compelling film on mediumship.
I started thinking along the lines that maybe id been too harsh on him, because i do like to excersise self-skepticsm at times and consider what people say to me in threads and such
Then i actually thought ok...what would happen if we took Randi investigative model and applied it to something else.
What i came up with is a creationist who puts up a million dollar challenge to anyone who can prove evolutionary theory as being 'correct'.
You would never persuade him, noone would ever claim that million.

Which of course says nothing about the evolutionary theory but everything about the person putting up the challenge.
And im back where i started - this is pseudo-science of the worst kind and we will never get anywhere with those sorts of experimental models.

 

[shaman_]

What i came up with is a creationist who puts up a million dollar challenge to anyone who can prove evolutionary theory as being 'correct'.
You would never persuade him, noone would ever claim that million.

No you don't have to pursuade Randi to win the challenge. You need to display the powers that you say you have. Randi does not judge if you win or not.

Perhaps you are thinking of Victor Zammit's challenge....

 

[shaman_]

Having re-read your post I do see the point you are making heliocentric - A challenge organised by someone who is known for opposing the paranormal sounds like it will never be fair.

The challenge is designed so that the jref cannot influence the results. The design of the test is approved by the applicant. It sounds perfectly fair to me.

 

[heliocentric]

It doesnt really matter if youre dealing with Randi or one of his associates - id be no more happy with that as i would a creationist palming off some of his pals onto me to make it 'impartial'.
Theres really even nothing preventing randi's circus from stopping someone from entering the race so to speak before theyve even got on the block.
'this person looks far too likely to produce positive results, just dont respond to their emails/letters'
And you know if someone starts producing positive results, randi's going to jump into the fray immediately, because hes done it before.
Its so easy to skew findings and experiments when youre convinced by a specific outcome, you really dont even have to be overt about it, alot of the time you probably wont even spot how the balance is being tipped in their favour.
All you really have to ask yourself is how many of these 'heres a million, go prove it' experiments have ever gone against the researcher?
Id be willing stake a bet that youd be hard pushed to find even one.

 

[Tnerb]

Do you guys want to prove telepathy exists ?
Do you guys want to do it ?
We can, if you want to.
...All you've got to do, is find a way to set me up with this guy. I'll prove it to the world! This is the chance! Reply to this message :0

 

[shaman_]

Theres really even nothing preventing randi's circus from stopping someone from entering the race so to speak before theyve even got on the block.
'this person looks far too likely to produce positive results, just dont respond to their emails/letters'
And you know if someone starts producing positive results, randi's going to jump into the fray immediately, because hes done it before.

If Randi stopped the test because someone was getting results they could go to the press (who love the paranormal) and it would be enough to discredit Randi and provide the validation for paranormal that believers have wanted. This is similar to the concern that Randi would just refuse to pay. If that happened many people would turn against him and the winner would be a hero.

What do you mean by 'he's done it before'? He has stopped the testing? When?

Its so easy to skew findings and experiments when youre convinced by a specific outcome, you really dont even have to be overt about it, alot of the time you probably wont even spot how the balance is being tipped in their favour.

Which is exactly my complaint about people like Schwartz, PEAR, SAIC, SRI, ect.

All you really have to ask yourself is how many of these 'heres a million, go prove it' experiments have ever gone against the researcher?
Id be willing stake a bet that youd be hard pushed to find even one.

Do these other challenges involve a controlled test or convincing judges? I only know of the Zammit one which is a joke.

 

[heliocentric]

What do you mean by 'he's done it before'? He has stopped the testing? When?

Wasnt saying hes ever stopped a test or ever would do what i mean is he has the capacity to get personally involved. And has done in previous experiments.

Which is exactly my complaint about people like Schwartz, PEAR, SAIC, SRI, ect.

I agree, im skeptical of the PEAR institute also, but why dont you extend the same skepticism when it comes to randi?

Do these other challenges involve a controlled test or convincing judges? I only know of the Zammit one which is a joke.

From what im aware yes, ive seen dozens of them invoking various guises and forms of experimentalism.

 

[shaman_]

Wasnt saying hes ever stopped a test or ever would do what i mean is he has the capacity to get personally involved. And has done in previous experiments.

Ok but I'm not sure what you mean by him getting involved. Are you saying that he changed the rules or something?

I agree, im skeptical of the PEAR institute also, but why dont you extend the same skepticism when it comes to randi?

Organisations like PEAR pick their people and keep testing and testing and changing the protocols until they have some results that they think are significant.

I don't think this is the same thing. If Randi announced that he had spent a few months testing ESP with some people he chose and it doesn't exist, well then I could understand scepticism towards those results. Here Randi is saying that I want someone, anyone to display their powers. These powers can be displayed in a test is designed by the jref and the applicant. It sounds to me like it couldn't be fairer.

If there were no money at stake would anyone take the test? Remember that it wasn't 1 million in the beginning.

 

[heliocentric]

Ok but I'm not sure what you mean by him getting involved. Are you saying that he changed the rules or something?

He has the capacity to get involved if he wants to do, and yes that involves doing a little ad hoc tweaking here and there if he wants.

Organisations like PEAR pick their people and keep testing and testing and changing the protocols until they have some results that they think are significant.

How does this differ atall to Randi's tests
He picks who ever wants, and hes changed protocols before - on some sort of homeopathy test from what i remember where they were getting some iteresting positive results.

I don't think this is the same thing. If Randi announced that he had spent a few months testing ESP with some people he chose and it doesn't exist, well then I could understand scepticism towards those results. Here Randi is saying that I want someone, anyone to display their powers. These powers can be displayed in a test is designed by the jref and the applicant. It sounds to me like it couldn't be fairer.

Well dont forget that hes after very specific (negative) results hes not a parapsychologists or even a skeptic, hes a debunker.

He can choose to deny anyone who might look like they have a chance to begin with.
Secondly creating a mutual test design doesnt really mean anything, someone with a proposed ability isnt going to know anything about the experimental process so it really wouldnt be hard to skew the testing so they wernt even aware of it.
And if Randi still has cart blanche to interfere with testing on an ad hoc basis then the chances of getting anything other than negative results and next to zero.

If there were no money at stake would anyone take the test? Remember that it wasn't 1 million in the beginning.

Of course they would, people go in for parapsychology or just plain psychology tests all the time without any money being involved.

 

[shaman_]

He has the capacity to get involved if he wants to do, and yes that involves doing a little ad hoc tweaking here and there if he wants.

How does this differ atall to Randi's tests
He picks who ever wants, and hes changed protocols before - on some sort of homeopathy test from what i remember where they were getting some iteresting positive results.

No. Randi does not choose the people he wants. He has a challenge that anyone can apply for.

Who are the people that Randi has rejected from taking the test? The only one I have heard of was a breatharian and that caused a debate.

Please provide me with some more detail regarding Randi changing the protocols.

Well dont forget that hes after very specific (negative) results hes not a parapsychologists or even a skeptic, hes a debunker.

So what if he is not a "parapsychologist"? Do you need these qualifications to be able to design a test?

Labelling him a debunker does isn't a compelling argument for anything. I don’t discard all evidence presented by ‘believers’.

He can choose to deny anyone who might look like they have a chance to begin with.
Secondly creating a mutual test design doesnt really mean anything, someone with a proposed ability isnt going to know anything about the experimental process so it really wouldnt be hard to skew the testing so they wernt even aware of it.

Anyone taking the test can get all the professional advice they want before agreeing to the protocol. They could speak to 100 scientists before replying to the jref. You have made a generalization here that none of them would. Nothing is stopping them. That is fair.

And if Randi still has cart blanche to interfere with testing on an ad hoc basis then the chances of getting anything other than negative results and next to zero.

I want to see where he has done this before. As far as I know, once the protocol is agreed upon it does not change.

Also bear in mind that Randi offers to not be at the test or even know when it is taking place.

Of course they would, people go in for parapsychology or just plain psychology tests all the time without any money being involved.

A test run by PEAR maybe. Do you really think that many people would apply for the James Randi $10 Challenge? I don't think many would.

 

[TW Scott]

grover:
You're not the first believer to suggest that.

The problem with that hypothesis is that Randi is often miles (even continents sometimes) away from the test taking place. He is not personally involved in many tests. Is his "psi" so strong that he can influence events all over the world, unconsciously?

Why not? And remember Randi has final say in who can take the aforementioned test. Perhaps he knows who is and who isn't. There are too many variables for this to be considered even near conclusive.

No skeptic believes that science is infallible. This is a straw man.

Plenty of people who claim to be skeptics do hold science as infallible. So no straw man.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Is his "psi" so strong that he can influence events all over the world, unconsciously?

Why not? And remember Randi has final say in who can take the aforementioned test. Perhaps he knows who is and who isn't. There are too many variables for this to be considered even near conclusive.

Are you a believer in unconscious, powerful psychic abilities, then, TW Scott? I guess little things like complete lack of evidence don't get in your way.

Why am I not surprised?

Plenty of people who claim to be skeptics do hold science as infallible.

Name one. Don't forget to provide a link or other reference.